Americans United - Massachusettshttps://au.org/our-work/grassroots/massachusetts
enUnreal Estate: Church Refuses To Sell Mansion To Same-Sex Couple https://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/unreal-estate-church-refuses-to-sell-mansion-to-same-sex-couple
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">A real estate transaction is not a religious observance and should not be treated as such.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Sometimes it’s acceptable for a house of worship to discriminate. </p><p>No one, for example, could reasonably expect a Catholic church to hire a Jewish rabbi. But does that limited exemption from anti-discrimination laws mean churches are free to refuse to sell real estate to gay couples? A Massachusetts court will soon decide that very issue.</p><p>In a lawsuit filed in Worcester Superior Court by James Fairbanks and Alain Beret, a married couple, the two allege that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester <a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/7686/when_churches_do_business/">refused to sell them a historic mansion</a> that the diocese once used as a retreat center, due to fears that the men might use the property for gay weddings.</p><p>The <em>Boston Globe</em> reported that Fairbanks and Beret were on track to buy the property from the church in 2012 after their offer was accepted. But the church later ended negotiations with the men.</p><p>Fairbanks and Beret were surely confused about what had gone wrong – that is, until the real estate agent for the diocese accidentally forwarded an email from the church to the couple explaining that the diocese did not want to sell the property to anyone who would use it for gay weddings.</p><p>Indeed, the <em>Globe </em>said, Fairbanks and Beret had planned to host events on their property including weddings. But the news report gave no indication that the house would be used specifically (or exclusively) for same-sex marriages, meaning it would have been no different from any other event venue.</p><p>The couple filed suit under Massachusetts’ anti-discrimination law, and fortunately a powerful ally is on their side: Martha Coakley, the state attorney general. In a statement, Coakley’s office said it is important to give protections to faith organizations, but not at the expense of individual rights.</p><p>“Our laws provide important protections for religious organizations and people of faith,” Coakley said in a statement. “These laws also strike a balance between religious freedoms and the rights of individuals to be free from discrimination. In this case, we believe that this family was unfairly discriminated against by the diocese when it refused to sell them property based on their sexual orientation.”</p><p>Another key aspect to this case is the distinction between religious observance and secular business that happens to be conducted by a church. The law does allow houses of worship to discriminate in cases tied to the observance of their faith. But when houses of worship enter into purely commercial transactions that have nothing to do with religion they must abide by the same laws as all other entities. A real estate transaction is not a religious observance and should not be treated as such.</p><p>This incident also serves to debunk one of the primary arguments made by those who oppose the birth-control mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Opponents say that they don’t have a problem with birth control; they just don’t want to pay for something they don’t support.</p><p>If that’s true how, exactly, can the diocese justify refusing to sell a house to anyone who <em>might</em> use that house for same-sex wedding ceremonies? If the church no longer owns the property, it cannot reasonably be accused of endorsing the activities there. It seems, then, that the church is actively working to prevent gay weddings from taking place even though it is in no way being forced to perform them – or even support them.</p><p>This entire affair is yet another example of what can happen if houses of worship are given carte blanche to ignore any and all laws that don’t suit them. When it comes to purely secular transactions, religion should never be used as a license to discriminate. The diocese is selling real estate. That doesn’t qualify as exercising religion. Let’s hope the courts agree.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/outside-workplace-discrimination-exemptions-religious-practice-including-military-prisons">Institutional Discrimination, Exemptions &amp; Religious Practice (Including Immigration, Military, Prisons &amp; Healthcare)</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-fairbanks">James Fairbanks</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/alain-beret">Alain Beret</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roman-catholic-diocese-of-worcester">Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/martha-coakley">Martha Coakley</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/worcester-superior-court">Worcester Superior Court</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Location:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/our-work/grassroots/massachusetts">Massachusetts</a></span></div></div>Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:47:25 +0000Simon Brown9739 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/unreal-estate-church-refuses-to-sell-mansion-to-same-sex-couple#commentsRepair Bill: Mass. Judge Says Taxpayers Can Be Forced To Pay For Church Restoration https://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/repair-bill-mass-judge-says-taxpayers-can-be-forced-to-pay-for-church
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Houses of worship in need of repair should ask their own congregants to foot the bill, not the local government. And since this is Martha’s Vineyard we’re talking about, I’m betting cash isn’t in short supply.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Is it ever OK for a church to receive taxpayer money for a restoration project? <a href="http://mvgazette.com/news/2013/11/25/judge-denies-injunction-block-use-cpa-money-church?k=vg5294b66d2a058&amp;r=1">A Massachusetts judge seems to think so</a>.</p><p>Trinity Methodist Church <a href="http://www.mvcma.org/brief.htm">opened in Oak Bluffs on Martha’s Vineyard in 1879</a>, and it remains an active congregation to this day. As will happen with old buildings, it’s overdue for some repairs. Specifically, the stained glass windows are in need of restoration.</p><p>The problem is Oak Bluffs wants to use $32,000 worth of Community Preservation Act money, which comes from a surcharge on local property taxes, to finance the project.</p><p>Ten residents didn’t like the sound of this scheme, and they sued to block public money from being handed over to a church.</p><p>Unfortunately, a court didn’t see anything wrong with this ploy. Superior Court Judge Richard T. Moses ruled that blocking the church from getting the money “wouldn’t be in the public interest,” the <em>Vineyard Gazette</em> reported Monday.</p><p>Moses seems to have ignored <a href="https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution">the Massachusetts Constitution</a>, which calls for strict church-state separation.</p><p>“No grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of credit shall be made or authorized by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any infirmary, hospital, institution, primary or secondary school, or charitable or religious undertaking which is not publicly owned,” reads that document in part.</p><p>It goes on to say, “[N]o such grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of public credit shall be made or authorized for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any church, religious denomination or society.”</p><p>What part of “no grant” does Moses not understand?</p><p>The lead plaintiff in this case, Brian P. Hughes, told the <em>Gazette:</em> “There seems to be no end in sight. One can imagine that eventually every old church in Massachusetts will seek to maintain its physical structure with public monies. There is a significant difference between a sectarian entity raising money voluntarily from the general public to preserve an historic church and compelling citizens to maintain a church through taxation.”</p><p>Hughes is right. Trinity Methodist Church may be an antique, but it isn’t just some museum. It holds worship services at 10 every Sunday morning. That sounds like an active church to me.</p><p>Houses of worship in need of repair should ask their own congregants to foot the bill, not the local government. And since this is Martha’s Vineyard we’re talking about, I’m betting cash isn’t in short supply.</p><p>I love history and by extension historic buildings, and I hate to see an older structure fall into disrepair. But it’s wrong for taxpayers to be forced by their government to pay to fix up any structure used mainly for religious purposes, regardless of that building’s age.</p><p>If Trinity Methodist Church is so beloved by its community, then those individuals who want to fix the church’s windows should find a way to repair them – with their own money. If the community won’t pay for the restoration voluntarily, then maybe the community doesn’t value the church as much as some people would claim.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/constructing-and-refurbishing-buildings-used-religious-activities">Constructing and Refurbishing Buildings Used for Religious Activities</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/judge-richard-t-moses">Judge Richard T. Moses</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/marthas-vineyard">Martha&#039;s Vineyard</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/trinity-methodist-church">Trinity Methodist Church</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/brian-p-hughes">Brian P. Hughes</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/oak-bluffs">Oak Bluffs</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/community-preservation-act">Community Preservation Act</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Location:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/our-work/grassroots/massachusetts">Massachusetts</a></span></div></div>Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:35:00 +0000Simon Brown9284 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/repair-bill-mass-judge-says-taxpayers-can-be-forced-to-pay-for-church#commentsWirzburger v. Galvinhttps://au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/wirzburger-v-galvin
<div class="field field-name-field-federal-court field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Federal Court:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/federal-courts/us-court-appeals-first-circuit">U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Massachusetts schoolchildren and their parents sought to obtain government funding for a parochial education by amending a provision of the Massachusetts Constitution — known as the "Anti-Aid Amendment" — that bars any public financial support for private primary or secondary schools. The Plaintiffs sought to amend this provision through a voters’ initiative, but the state Constitution explicitly prohibits initiatives to amend the Anti-Aid Amendment, as well as initiatives that concern "religion, religious practices or religious institutions." The plaintiffs challenged the two provisions prohibiting initiatives as violative of the Free Speech, Free Exercise, Equal Protection, Right to Petition, and Establishment Clause provisions of the federal Constitution. In 2001, Americans United joined an <i>amicus</i> brief opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and in December 2002, we joined an <i>amicus </i>brief in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. We argued that substantive limitations on the initiative process are primarily limitations on lawmaking and only secondarily limitations on speech, and that the prohibitions do not reflect viewpoint discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on March 31, 2004, finding that the prohibition on initiatives is viewpoint-neutral because it precludes proposals friendly <i>or</i> hostile to religion. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling and we joined an <i>amicus curiae </i>brief on the defendants’ behalf on August 20, 2004. In a ruling issued on June 24, 2005, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the prohibitions restrict some speech, but do so only as an "unintended side-effect" — so intermediate, rather than strict or rational-basis, scrutiny is appropriate. The prohibitions withstand such scrutiny because they are narrowly drawn to further a significant state interest in maintaining the proper balance between promoting free exercise and preventing state establishment of religion. The prohibitions do not violate the Free Exercise or Equal Protection Clauses because they are nondiscriminatory, applying to any group or individual regardless of their religious affiliation. The case is now concluded.</p></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-aus-role field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Role:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/au-role/amicus">Amicus</a></div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/official-prayer-religious-displays-ceremonial-religion">Official Prayer, Religious Displays &amp; Ceremonial Religion</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/school-vouchers-government-subsidies-religious-schools">School Vouchers &amp; Government Subsidies of Religious Schools</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-involvement-begin field-type-date field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Involvement Began:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">January 2001</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-case-status field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Status:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/court-case-status/closed">Closed</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-recent-developments field-type-text-long field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Most Recent Developments:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:12:03 +0000Americans United5643 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/wirzburger-v-galvin#comments